How Does Copyright Apply To Your Kids' Monster Drawings?

from the it's-the-copyright-monster!-run! dept

Justin Levine has an interesting blog post up about a book I hadn't heard of, called The Monster Engine. The author, Dave Devries, took children's drawings of monsters, and turned them into paintings that use the identical line structure of the kid's drawings (he projects them on the wall and then draws over them). Apparently, Devries' work is quite popular, and people have talked about it on the internet for years:

There is no doubt that the children's original doodles are protected by copyright for their entire life, plus 70 additional years.

There is no doubt that Devries' paintings of the doodles are 'derivative works' stemming from the original creations of the children.

Do you believe that Devries should be forced to get formal copyright releases from each and every one of the kids in question? Do you think he has done so? If so, should they be able to repudiate their copyright agreement when they turn 18 since many jurisdictions allow minors to repudiate contracts signed before they reach 18? If so, should they be able to take Devries's work out of circulation?

Do you think that the children should all share in the royalties from books, art and showcases that Devries produces for the rest of their lives (and beyond - for 7 decades)? Do you think that is in fact the case of what is going on? If Devries hasn't gotten a copyright release and/or isn't paying royalties, do you feel that he is somehow "exploiting" these kids or "stealing" from them?

These are pretty serious questions -- because under copyright law today, this book is trouble, and that's unfortunate, because it looks like a lovely book. My guess would be that Devries actually had to get permission from the parents, but do parents have the right to sign away the copyright on a child's work? And do those children then have the right to terminate that agreement at a later date? Perhaps people think the likelihood of kids later terminating the agreement is quite low -- and maybe they're right. But what would happen if a kid no longer wanted to be associated with that artwork?

Most interesting

Re: Most interesting

The law will handle it the same way it does for parents of child stars. The parents sign away all the rights and collect all the money and blow it on stupid things, leaving the child with nothing by the time their a washed up has been, drug using corpse at 18.

Re: Re: Most interesting

Exactly. child artists need protection, Their parents -- or other adults -- should not have complete control. Some sort of escrow accounting should be put in place , so any $'s remain in limbo till the artist becomes 18 , or even 16 , or even just mature enough to understand according to a legal court judge.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Most interesting

"Why should artistic children get special legal protections not enjoyed by every other child?"
No really my point , but interesting notheless.
Is is not uncommon , for example , for grandparents to set up trust funds that bypass parents. The $$ is there when the grandchild becomes , 16, 21 , or even 30( -- as an aunt of mine did.)
Clearly our "Mozart" can't be given "control" of millions of $$ when still 5 -yrs -old. But why should the parents get rich?
Tough issue, that needs a wise solution, and as we see from this thread , there is no easy clear-cut answer.

What about the children? It looks like some of those children are ripping off DC IP with their superman, supergirl, and wonder woman drawings. I suppose they could argue parody, since the drawings are pretty bad, but I don't think 10 year olds are that clever.

At any rate, if IP was taken to the extreme here, this guy could be in trouble plenty. I don't see why he shouldn't have to license the images the kids sent him.

I'm sure they signed a release!

And then it's okay, since a release allows you to sign away anything, at anytime!

What?

All right, seriously? No copyright claim from the children. Likewise, when my son decides to draw copyrighted action figures, no one had better come after him, either. Gloves off, works both ways, a stitch in time saves nine.

Consent

Your question regarding whether parents have the "right" to sign away copyrights on behalf of their children seems silly.

Children under the age of 18 are not legally allowed to enter into any agreement. It is always true that parents/legal guardians are required to give permission/enter into legal contracts on behalf of their children.

Thus, parents not only have the right, they are the only way to "sign away" copyright information.

Re: Consent

Children under the age of 18 are not legally allowed to enter into any agreement. It is always true that parents/legal guardians are required to give permission/enter into legal contracts on behalf of their children.

Such agreements expire when the child becomes an adult. In other words, parents cannot enter their children into agreements that are binding for life. Otherwise legal guardians could sell children into virtual slavery: "Gimme a million dollars now, and I'll sign an agreement that this kid will work for you for free for the rest of his life".

Thus, parents not only have the right, they are the only way to "sign away" copyright information.

Only until the child becomes an adult. Then the agreement would become void.

Answers, not questions

Mike

Start doing investigation and stop just looking at things and asking questions. Questions are good, but your real job is to investigate, to give us answers to the questions we have. And yes, you bring up good questions, but this article is way too short on facts. For all your questions, why not go out and do some research.

Do you believe that Devries should be forced to get formal copyright releases from each and every one of the kids in question?

Actually, it doesn't matter what we believe. It's what laws have stated and courts have ruled. Our opinions are not law. (For which I give thanks.)

Do you think he has done so?

This question is silly. Not only are we being asked to judge the law, we are being asked to be mind readers or psychics.

If so, should they be able to repudiate their copyright agreement when they turn 18 since many jurisdictions allow minors to repudiate contracts signed before they reach 18?

This is a great bit of information that I did not know. It is unclear how it applies in this situation, but it is a good start for a conversation with a lawyer.

If so, should they be able to take Devries's work out of circulation?

Another good question for the lawyer.

Do you think that the children should all share in the royalties from books, art and showcases that Devries produces for the rest of their lives (and beyond - for 7 decades)?

You ARE going to get that lawyer for the kids. I'm starting to worry about their rights.

Do you think that is in fact the case of what is going on?

Again, you need a lawyer and a psychic.

If Devries hasn't gotten a copyright release and/or isn't paying royalties, do you feel that he is somehow "exploiting" these kids or "stealing" from them?

OK, perhaps we should skip the lawyer and find the Attorneys General for the states involved. Exploitation of children and theft are very serious issues.

These are pretty serious questions

Good! You agree with me

. . . because under copyright law today, this book is trouble, and that's unfortunate, because it looks like a lovely book.

Oh, you're not interested in stopping the exploitation of children. It seems you're just interested in railing against one or two things you know about copyright law.

My guess would be that Devries actually had to get permission from the parents...

Guessing doesn't count.

... but do parents have the right to sign away the copyright on a child's work?

What did I tell you about finding case law?

And do those children then have the right to terminate that agreement at a later date?

Well, you told us there was some case law on the subject. Did you ask the lawyer if it applies? Tell us what the lawyer said.

Perhaps people think the likelihood of kids later terminating the agreement is quite low -- and maybe they're right.

By people, I think you mean Devries, his lawyer, his publisher, and their lawyer. I'm not a psychic, but I have a feeling those lawyers have thought about any future suits the children might bring.

But what would happen if a kid no longer wanted to be associated with that artwork?

Are you asking what the courts would do? Or the publisher would do? Or the kid (now adult) would do?

But if you don't know the answer, why not call Devries or the publisher and ask them what they would do in that case. This is what a reporter should do. Investigate, not pontificate

Re: Answers, not questions

"But if you don't know the answer, why not call Devries or the publisher and ask them what they would do in that case. This is what a reporter should do. Investigate, not pontificate"

Mike is not a reporter. He has specifically stated that he is not a reporter, or a journalist. By the way, please put some formatting in your post next time, so people can read it easily without trying to work out which parts are quotes.

Re: Answers, not questions

Start doing investigation and stop just looking at things and asking questions. Questions are good, but your real job is to investigate, to give us answers to the questions we have.

I have discussed this before. This is a *discussion* site. I am not a reporter or a journalist. I post stuff that I find interesting, because I think it will make for an interesting discussion.

I'm sorry if you don't like the nature of the site, but no, it is not "my real job" to answer the questions. I post what I find interesting as a *start* of a discussion. If I had all the answers, what fun would that be?

Re: Re: Answers, not questions

Brovo, Mike !! It is your writings , and "seeding" of discussions
that make TechDirt one of the best reads on the web. While I have beeb a daily reader for years , I rarely take time to comment on threads,, but this thread here , and your "food for thought" opening post , was one disscussion i could I could not pass up today. ( Plus I amworking at home today nursing a cold bug, so what the hey ,,,,)

This is a deep , complicated and important issue

Child rights are that things that keep political theorists.awake at night, There are no clear " moral" answers. While all children grow at their own unique pace ,, that law must be set in non-subjective modes -- i.e. age. Maybe giving a judge the ability and power to decide when a child artist can take "control" would work. Parents clearly cannot be shut out totally , but the child artists need to be protected. The Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart of today would get screwed under curent policy and law.

Illegal!!

Since art imitates life and life is patent-pending and copyrighted, any and all forms of art, or "supposedly" original thought should be outlawed and supressed. If it's not in the "Good Book", don't think it. Get the latest copy of the Newspeak dictionnary, or shut up.

Re: automatic copyright?

Not any more, I think it is the Bern Convention. To be covered for money beyond damages you have to be regestered, supposidly, but now the act of putting it down is creating a copyright.

You have a copyright on everything you wrote, even this comment. You can write a paper entitled 'I f*ing hate Copyright' and it would be forcibly covered by copyright until you have been dead 70 years.

Re: automatic copyright?

"In all countries that are members of the Berne Convention copyright is automatic, and need not be obtained through official registration with any government office. Once an idea has been reduced to tangible form, for example by securing it in a fixed medium (such as a drawing, sheet music, photograph, a videotape, or a computer file), the copyright holder is entitled to enforce his or her exclusive rights. However, while registration isn't needed to exercise copyright, in jurisdictions where the laws provide for registration, it serves as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright."

California Child Actor's Bill,

" the California Child Actor's Bill, sometimes known as the Coogan Bill or the Coogan Act. This requires that the child's employer set aside 15% of the child's earnings in a trust, and codifies such issues as schooling, work hours and time-off. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackie_Coogan

picture

Copyrights is a big problem nowadays. It's only the big idea to get a free music, movies, pictures. American big brands gets copyrights for theirs movies, pictures, trademarks for 70 years or even 90. Check this Zwiastuny - i have a site with movie trailers, i use youtube embed links, but i think it's not acceptem by law, i try to protect myself and my site by youtube, that trailers isn't mine.

stealer

This could actually be relevant

Hey I`m still under 16 and draw (write) half-descent stuff. I`d be pissed if my parents somehow sold 'my' work for 'their' benefit (not that it's any good). If a person makes it they themselves should have full control of what happens to it. And I don't mean re-colored pictures of sonic the f*cking hedgehog, complete originality only, no cheep knock-offs (minus store brand cereal). Any complaints? Please take 'that' up with my best friend, Mister kitchen knife.